Do you hear the people sing?

So we'll often sit there and watch the news watching East Germans bring down the Berlin,  Romanians toppling Ceausescu, you may even have watched Independence Sq in Kiev cheering on those fighting fo their freedoms. We see opposed people all over the world fighting for their right to be heard. We like to think "if I was there I would be fighting with them" It's easy to sit there as sofa  warriors and make those claims, but now, today, it's happening in a major 1st world super power. We have ignored and dismissed the oppression faced by people of colour in the United States for too long. My good friends Dillon Hutchins and Bryan Tautfest got off their sofa and marched through Los Angeles, no longer sofa warriors they documented their experience. 3 hours of no violence, then the police showed up. No more words, just pictures.

                                             

 

 

 

                                           

 

 
 

 

 

 

Mormon Lives Matter

So the last few days have a been a torrid time following the murder of George Floyd at the hand of 4 Minneapolis police officers. Unfortunately this hasn't been an isolated event but the latest occurrence in the systematic murder of people of colour in the United States by various police forces across the country, there can be no doubt there is a massive racist problem in those institutions. This sparked protest that night in Minneapolis and as of last night similar protests across the states have been

ignited and violence has broken out at many. All our Facebook feeds have been filled with images of Minneapolis in flames as the protests turned into riots and last nights police cars were over turned and set on fire in Salt Lake City. Understanding has turned to condemnation from various sources regarding this violence, feeling that such actions are the conduct of violence hungry louts rather than legitimate protestors. Now in there is some mileage with this view, especially when the Governor of Minnesota has said that a good portion of those arrested came from out of state, and there appears to be good evidence that White Supremacist  movements have infiltrated the riots to escalate them and turn public opinion against the protestors. I also absolutely agree that peaceful protest should always be the go to form of all protest, but what happens when peaceful protests are being ignored?

Now it could be argued that the protests against George Floyd should remain peaceful, that was the go to for this incident, but this isn't an isolated incident. This is the latest event that has garnered international attention in a string of too many in several years. Frankly peaceful protests have been ignored. It started when various sports stars in the USA took the knee during the playing of the
national anthem, and it destroyed careers. Massive outrage followed, this being seen as a sign of massive disrespect to the flag and those who died fighting for the freedoms it represents. I genuinely don't get this because here in Europe taking the knee means to show great respect, for example during the Queen's coronation the peers of the realm kneel before her to pledge their fealty, but this isn't my culture and I can't impose mine upon it. Saying that it was peaceful, it made the point and conversations were had. Frankly, also, he didn't scream, shout, swear, trample the flag on the floor or burn it so there could've been so many more disrespectful ways to make that protest.  The outrage was real so those who followed him chose different ways, because sadly his protest failed to implement change.

More stories came to light of the struggle PoC face with law enforcement in the States. Unfair stop and searches, overly aggressive arrests, we've all read the accounts. As awful as the killings were it became evident these were the tip of the iceberg of the fear and persecution PoC face just for being black on a day to day basis. Protest marches were organised by Black Lives Matter which caused

disgust and outrage...how dare you block the road and discommode my day? Even the name of the organisation caused controversy as white folks deemed that "obviously" they were saying white lives don't. Of course white lives matter too, but unfortunately too many fail to have the same sacrosanct attitude to black lives as they do white, and yes maybe the organisation could've named itself Black Lives Matter Too so that the white folk don't feel "persecuted'. But why should they? Sorry if your feeling are hurt here but black people are suffering way much more than semantic issues that burn your arse. Time and time again the peaceful way has failed as the people in power have decided to take offence at the method rather than listen to the hurt. As Martin Luther King said "a riot is the language of the unheard"

So why is the title of this post "Mormon Lives Matter"? Well last night as I was skimming through my Facebook feed Deseret News was posting about the protests in Salt Lake City, and a picture of an overturned police car on fire was among those posts. Members of the church were quite vocal in their disgust at these protests, and abhorred that members of the church would be among them, because

obviously members should refrain from violent protest. Shouldn't they? Well Rosie Card, the founder of Q.noor temple dresses, made a post a few days ago comparing this action today and Joseph Smith's destruction of the printing press in Nauvoo, and pointing out the persecution we faced and our historical reaction to it. So I decided to look into this aspect of our history and our reaction to it.

We all know the stories of the persecution we faced from the mobs in the 1830-40's in the USA. Our farms were burnt, our women raped and our men and children killed. The Governor of Missouri even issued the extermination order making it legal to murder a member of the church. Joseph sought many times for legal respite from these horrors, taking it right to the top and visiting the President of the United Staes, all were ignored. Joseph was murdered  by these and we were forced to leave the US and head into Mexico and founded the territory of Deseret. Unsurprisingly Joseph went to the Lord regards to how the Saints should react to these persecutions and the Lord's reply can be found in D&C 98:23-31 and the outline of this is as follows. that if a men will come at you smite you or your families once that you should bear it with patience and seek no retaliation, and the same the second, third  times too. That these 3 testimonies will stand against them in the Lord's eyes and cannot be blotted out if he refuses to repent. This is where it gets interesting. If they come at you a fourth time if you will also bear this with patience then the Lord will bless you and your posterity unto the 4th generation. BUT. The enemy is now in your hands and if you "reward him according to his works" you are now justified before the Lord in your actions! In vs 32 He then goes onto say that this a law he has given to all His people

through history. Let us remember that twice in our history Joseph raised an army to deal with the mobs, the first being Zion's camp and the 2nd the Nauvoo Legion. In June 1843 the prophet makes this statement "if Missouri continues in her warfare...I will turn up the world-I will make war". All this culminates in 1844 with the destruction of the Nauvoo expositor printing press.

So before we rise ourselves up in righteous indignation at the events post George Floyd's death let us remember 180 years ago this was us! WE were the ones suffering under these awful conditions, let us remember our history and our reactions to that oppression. We too retaliated, we raided the farms of our persecutors, burnt property and more. Mormon raiders had their part to play in the story of our persecutions and we considered ourselves justified in our actions.

To be clear I am NOT giving out a call to arms, to rise in violence with the protestors of today, but let us at least have empathy for their position. Let us remember when we cried out to an unlistening world "Mormon lives matter" and were ignored. Let us remember our past and use that to find a resolution that ends the racism and atrocities PoC all over the world suffer. Let us use our past to ensure that no-one ever has to resort to violence to have their voice heard. Let us remember the words of brother Joseph when he said "if it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any denomination; for the same principle which would trample on the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman catholics, or of any other denomination who maybe be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves. It is a love of liberty which inspires my soul-civil and religious liberty to the whole human race."

If we wish to wipe the stain of the priesthood ban from our collective, what better way than to stand with our African brethren now.

                    

Sands of Change

So this week was a momentous moment in Church history when The Brethren reversed the 2015 exclusion policy which marked married gay couples as apostates, and denied church ordinances to the children of gay couples. This was an awful policy which caused nothing but pain and sorrow, that punished children for the 'sins' of their parents and denied the Gift of the Holy Ghost to children who, because their parents were living contrary to church teachings, would probably need it more than others; and it is worth celebrating that it's gone. But, and it's a big but, there was a massive disconnect between the original announcement and the reversal this week. Both were declared to be the mind and will of God as revealed to his servant the prophet, which begs the question why did God change His mind so quick? I mean it's easy to understand how policy can change after decades have past. What was right for the 1950's isn't a good fit for the 21st century, but to do a 180 in just 3½ years what could have possibly changed that drastically? How can we trust a God that flip flops so easily? Were the brethren mistaken in 2015? If so how can we trust them if they can make such a mistake? Why would God give revelation to his prophet that would take us down the wrong road? Many people have commented over the interweb this is policy not doctrine and that's the point of continuing revelation. Which does sit well when we're talking about decades, but not so well when talking about months. So I'm going to go down a rabbit hole here, will you journey with me? What if both were revelation? Would God give us revelation that would take us down the wrong path? Uncomfortably the answer is a resounding yes he has done so before.

The most prominent example of this is in 1 Samuel 8, Israel wants a king. Samuel goes to the Lord and asks of him and is told, no. He's also told to tell them all the evils that will befall them if they choose a king, he does so and Israel once again demands a king. In 1 Samuel 8:22 "And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king." He then uses a Urrim and Tummim to select a king. More latterly Joseph Smith bothered the Lord into letting Martin Harris borrow the 116 pages of translation manuscript. He was told no and Joseph wouldn't listen, so in the end God gave permission to Joseph, those pages were lost and Joseph had to suffer the consequences of that.

You see our Father knows his children very well. We are prideful, stubborn and have a tendency to think we know what's best and periodically our Heavenly Father has to show us how we're wrong. The church as an organisation had become set in how it was going to interact with the LGBT community, so can I see our Heavenly Father looking down, knowing us better than we know ourselves, and thinking "ok, you want to go do down that path? Fine lets take you down that path and see where it leads". So he gives the go-ahead for the exclusion policy. That path led to misery. People left the church in droves as they saw a massive disconnect between suffer the little children and the exclusion of the children of gay parents. It was about as unchristlike as you could get. Thousands of gay members felt they had been kicked in the balls. Gay couples who attend church felt this was nothing more than big fuck you, and a clear signal they were not wanted in our buildings. and most horrifically are those who because of this policy lost their final strand of hope and chose to end their own lives, mortality had become so painful, the loss of hope so complete they could no longer see the point in continuing the journey. Can I see 3½ years later the brethren after seeing this shambles going back to the Lord and our loving Heavenly Father, patient as ever, "Ok we went that way and now you know what that road looks like. Now can we do it my way?"

As a good friend of mine said last night, why are we so surprised when we get it wrong? If you read your scriptures a heavy percentage of the stories, right from the Old Testament through to the restoration, are of Israel screwing it up and God having to come in and clean up the mess. The exclusion policy was a mistake that brought nothing but pain and suffering, but unfortunately we sometimes have to learn from our mistakes. So what lessons did we learn? Well the one thing I noticed when this policy came out I don't know one person that didn't struggle with it to one degree or another. Some got over it pretty quickly and others never will, but suddenly everyone was aware of our struggles as gay LDS. There were people who had no idea that there was an issue suddenly realising we needed to be on their radar and reaching out. John Gustav-Wrathall, President of Affirmation, wrote an unprecedented full page article in Deseret News on how to help LGBT feel welcome in your meetings. I saw a people wakened up to other's pain that they were oblivious to before. I saw peoples attitudes change, and an increase in love.

We NEED to learn that lesson, because by God the price was high, too bloody high! We as a church will be held accountable before the throne of God for the suffering it caused, and so we need to learn that lesson. Exclusion is never the answer. Love is. Only love.

The Book of Abraham: Another Testament of Joseph Smith (Part 1)

Well one of the biggest attacks on the church has been Joseph's translation of the Book of Abraham, and it has become one of the most controversial because now that we are able to translate Egyptian we can verify how accurate a translator Joseph was. First we need to set the background.

History

Rosetta stone

In 1835 when Joseph came into possession of some mummies and Egyptian papyri the Egyptian language was a dead language, well not dead but definitely asleep! It was untranslatable. Now the Rosetta Stone had been discovered by this point which would crack the code but it wouldn't be until the 1850's that that would happen, and at this point only the top egyptologists would have access to it at the British Museum. So Micheal Chandler approached Joseph in Kirkland in 1835 as he had heard of Joseph's ability to translate dead languages and hoped to sell a bunch of mummies and scrolls he had been commissioned to sell. Joseph looked through the mummies and recognised them as being written by the hand of Abraham and immediately set about raising the $2500 asking price. He translates the scrolls and eventually they get published as the Book of Abraham, to be canonised as scripture in the Pearl of Great Price in 1880. Lucy Mack Smith opens a 'museum' of sorts and as word of the translation spreads charges people a small fee to see the mummies and scrolls to try and recuperate some of the costs in buying them.


After Joseph's death the artefacts pass through several hands to be lost again to the world...to be partially rediscovered in 1966 and bought by the church in 1967. Authenticity could be established as the fragments found were still attached to paper which also had drawings of Kirkland temple and maps of the area, but it's estimated that only about ⅓ of the original manuscripts had been discovered. Also they had been damaged by the great Chicago fire and flooding of the museum. This caused great excitement both inside and outside the church because by now the Egyptian language was easily translatable and finally we have an empirical test to examine Joseph's claims.

And this is where it becomes problematic...

Experts examine the fragments and they are discovered to be experts from the Book of Breathings which is effectively a cliff notes version of The Book of the Dead, an Egyptian funerary text, of a high priest named Soter and buried in Thebes in the 1st century BC. Joseph fails the test...or does he?

Ancient Teaching Styles
So before we get into this I need to introduce you to an ancient teaching style that hid higher teachings inside common teachings as introduced to me by reading Hugh B Nibley. First lets read John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Now Nibley teaches that the word logos its correctly translated here as word, but that it can also be translated as counsel/council, now lets reread that with that knowledge.

In the beginning was the council, and the council was with God, and the council was God.

Now to an LDS mind this brings a whole new deeper meaning to this verse, and this was a method used by the ancients that would hide deeper knowledge that only the initiated would understand.

Now with this in mind let's look at there scrolls that were found...

Facsimiles

Now taking that let's take a look at facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham, above is a graphic I found online which perfectly shows Joseph's interpretation vs the egyptologists. Before we get into this we have to remember that Joseph's knowledge of Egyptian culture and religion would have been zero, and had no frame of reference for anything he saw here.

So first of all Joseph says this is Abraham about to be sacrificed by the priests of Elkenah, in the Book of the Dead this is an image portraying the process of mummification. Both are religious rituals centred on death.

#1 Joseph identifies this as an angel, whereas in the BotD it's identified as the soul of the departed. As mormons we know that angels are visitations of those who have lived or who will live on this Earth...so both translate this as an angel.

#2 Both are translated as the object of the death ritual.

#3 The BoA represents this as a priest of Elkenah. The above graphic doesn't give the full translation of this but in the BotD this is Anubis about to start the mummification process. Obviously Anubis himself doesn't do this, so in the ritual we have a priest perform it in place of Anubis. So in both we have a priest represented here.

#4 both are translated as an object the subject is lying on (that one is really quite obvious)

#5,6,7&8 Now Joseph says that these are images representing 4 gods, and we know today that these are actually 4 canopic jars in which the innards of the deceased are placed during the mummification process. Big miss hey? Not really. The four jars represent the gods Hapi, Duamutef, Imsety and Qebehsenuf. The names maybe different but he correctly identifies these as Gods of Egypt.

#9 BoA says this is the god Pharaoh, the BotD says this is the God Horus. Now other than both being correctly translated as gods, and also recognising that there was a cult of Pharaoh, Pharaoh was recognised by the Egyptian religion as the physical incarnation of Horus in life. A home run hit by Joseph there!

#10 Not sure I fully understand the connection between these. Holding my hands up there.

#11 Now Joseph says this is supposed to represent the pillars of heaven as the Egyptians understood them, Egyptologists say this is a serakh which represents the palace of Pharaoh. As explained earlier 9 clearly represents the god Pharaoh. The heavens are where a god lives...definitely a strong connection there.

#12 The image above rise to dismiss this as 'just the water the crocodile swims in' but the crocodile is a god and so the water becomes the dwelling place of a god. In Genesis one, the heavens are more than once represented as 'waters'. The heavens being where gods dwell. 

As you can see time and time again Joseph Smith correctly identifies the principles behind each of the representations. Once again I will re-emphasise that at this point in the 19th century almost nothing was known about Egypt, so for him to hit this ball again and again and again categorically proves that Joseph did translate these correctly. Especially when we add into the mix what Nibley teaches us about hidden teaching inside common imagery.

The Scrolls

Now lets look at the scrolls themselves. The main claim is that translating the papyrus that we have it becomes clear that they are excerpts from the The Book of Breathings and just plain old funerary texts, so therefore Joseph's translatation is wrong. Well there's one thing we need to establish first, are these the actual scrolls Joseph used to translate the Book of Abraham? Well we're not certain how many scrolls were recovered and how many are still missing,  but we definitely don't have them all. 

So we need to look for other evidence. Is there a description of the scrolls used? Fortunately yes! Joseph himself gives us a description. "The record of Abraham and Joseph found with the mummies is beautifully written on papyrus, with black and a small part red ink or paint, in perfect preservation"

So lets look at images of the papyrus courtesy of wikipedia:

So first of all are these beautifully written? Well no, Nibley describes them as having a feel of being written in a rush, and anyone who has seen other examples of Egyptian writing would agree, these aren't great examples of the beauty of Egyptian writing. They do have examples of red ink though, but what about the preservation of them? Now that is a difficult one because as mentioned earlier they were involved in a fire, and water damage from flooding, and they probably weren't stored in optimal conditions. While the water damage can be seen on the above, what about the other damage? Well these were pasted to paper by Joseph  and the surrounding paper isn't  that badly effected. And we can see the head from the facsimile is missing, and it looks as if they were pasted on to the paper in that condition, so no not in perfect preservation. I think the evidence that we have more than strongly supports that these scrolls are not the scrolls that Joseph translates the Book of Abraham from.

But, I hear you cry, we can clearly see the facsimile in the scroll! Why would the facsimile be there if these aren't the scrolls? Well in his book The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri Nibley answers this. Now to our modern European minds pictures always go with the texts but no so with Egyptian writing, very often the pictures are not associated with the accompanying texts at all. This seems bizarre to us but was perfectly normal for them. In fact when you read the Book of Abraham, when it references the facsimiles it outright states that the facsimile it references is to be found elsewhere. Abraham 1:12-14 makes it clear that the facsimile is at the beginning of this record. But Abraham chapter 1 is the beginning of what we have. It would seem weird to say "you need to go to the beginning" when you're at the beginning, therefore what we have as chapter 1 cannot have been the beginning of the scroll it was recorded on.

Who wrote it?

So we now have to deal with who wrote them? Well, Joseph Smith absolutely declares these scrolls to be written by the hand of Abraham, but as we discussed earlier they were found in the tomb of Soter, a high priest buried in the first century A.D. So how do resolve that one? Quite easily actually. Who painted the ceiling of the Sistine chapel? Michelangelo right? That's easy, but wrong. While Michelangelo definitely painted the important aspects of the ceiling, the background etc would have probably been painted by students of his under his supervision. This was perfectly normal and most of the super sized great works were painted like this, but we only credit the master with the work. The Egyptians dealt likewise. In fact regards written works Nibley informs us that no matter how many times a scroll was copied by scribes, it was still considered to be written by the hand of the original author. So even if the original author was several thousand years earlier under Egyptian tradition a scroll would still be considered to be written by his hand. We also know that there are unique hieroglyphs on these common texts that only exist on the Joseph Smith papyrus, which definitely suggests that are things in regard to these texts that make them special. So in conclusion, even though these scrolls are a couple of thousand years one would have to prove that the original that the scribe copied it from was written by someone else other than Abraham. Now while proving that it was would be just as an impossible task, that Abraham would hide hidden knowledge for the initiated is perfectly feasible, and in the next part of this post I will absolutely prove beyond a doubt that Joseph Smith knew exactly what was in the scrolls we do have.

My Sources

While my study of Egyptology as a teenager has definitely helped me in this study a major source for me in the writing of this blog has been his book The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri and other works of his. I would love to specify which ones but over the years I have unfortunately forgotten where I got what... But if you can't wait for my next part which will be a few weeks away, then The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri can be purchased from Deseret Books here

A Times Response

So most of you by now are aware there's been a bit of a fuss over a certain obituary in the New York Times for President Thomas S Monson, and I genuinely have to wonder how many people have actually read the article? Are we reading the same article? From my reading of the interweb it seems a certain paragraph is causing the main concern and while I can in some way see why some people see it that way I am baffled that so many do.

"Facing vociferous demands to recognize same-sex marriage, and weathering demonstrations at church headquarters by Mormon women pleading for the right to be ordained as priests, Mr. Monson did not bend. Teachings holding homosexuality to be immoral, bans on sexual intercourse outside male-female marriages, and an all-male priesthood would remain unaltered."

Now let's take this apart a bit. vociferous according to the Oxford English dictionary means "Expressing or characterised by vehement opinions; loud and forceful." Weathering in this context means to "withstand"and usually has positive connotations for the subject. So despite vehement opinions and demonstrations he weathered those storms and did not bend. He remained resolute to core doctrines and tenets and refused to bend to public opinions. Why the hell aren't we seeing this as an amazing tribute for a prophet of God? I sure do! Add to this the implied praise they write regarding lowering the age of Sister missionaries, and for opening the church historical department in an "unprecedented era of openness" I read an article that portrays President Monson's stewardship through some difficult times as one of strong leadership, who listened to concerns and changed when he felt it was needed but remained resolute to doctrines as currently revealed by God. And to be completely frank if you feel The Times addressing of these issues constituted an attack upon our church then maybe you should reassess your own position on them? Maybe you're not as comfortable with the church's position as you think you are? And please do not see this as a personal attack on you? Anyone who knows me knows I live for these times. We should be uncomfortable with things at times. We need to be. Because when we're uncomfortable it forces us to evaluate and reassess ourselves.

I do not agree with every policy decision President Monson signed his name to. Our leaders have made mistakes in the past and I have no doubt that we have policies today in our church future generations will wonder at, and we will make more mistakes in the future. And while I am the first to say there are many things that need to change and will change in the church as further light and knowledge are received it makes my heart sing that our prophet is recognised as a man who holds firm to the light and knowledge as he has received it to this point. That our prophet is not a man who is seen as bending to public opinion but will stand firm even if the whole world is against him. Yes there are a couple of sentences in the article that have a tone that could've been better the overall tone of the article is one that I absolutely am proud of.

LDS- An LGBT abomination

LDS- An LGBT abomination

So last week the ELM AP's got in touch with me, the Britannia 1st missionaries were teaching a gay guy and they wondered if I could help. I agreed, they phoned me & we arranged a time for me to go over and teach him with them. He was a cute guy, with a boyfriend, and very intelligent. We taught him about the Plan of Salvation and the Elders thought that the best way to bring up being gay & mormon was to teach the Law of Chastity. We got to the point where we discussed no sexual relations outside of marriage nor any homosexual sexual activity, and this is where I entered stage right and took centre stage...where every gay man loves to be.The Elders explained I was a gay mormon and asked me to share my story with him. I did so. Warts and all. I felt if he was going to make the decision to enter the waters of baptism then he deserved the full truth, not the glitter covered one. (For those who don't know my story it can be found here).

He had met with the missionaries before and unfortunately he had learnt of the churches position on homosexuality when they had told him that homosexuals go to the Telestial Kingdom with rapists and murderers. I rounded on the Elders I was with, demanding to know if this was what was written in Preach My Gospel, they assured me it wasn't. I profusely apologised to our investigator for having been taught false doctrine and we discussed the real truth that all that God offers he offers to all His children, wether gay or straight. We discussed the churches current position, how members unfortunately can sometimes be behind the times on this subject & the problems that can bring. We discussed how the UK church can be more up to date than the US church, and how we can affect the change that is needed in the more bigoted members of the church. it went well, the Spirit was present and we closed and arranged a future teaching appointment.

The next day I received a message from Elders Nelson & Mauerhan telling me that the investigator had dropped them, with the following message.

Elder Nelson, I'm writing this to both you and Elder Mauerham. I hope that you can grant me a last favour and ensure that he too gets a chance to read this. 

When I think about the Church of Latter Day Saints, unlike many of you I cannot think of a happy childhood in the Church, nor of times in which the organisation has been there for me in moments of hardship. Instead, I think of an organisation that denies me my existence. As I made no attempt to hide, I am a gay man. I was upfront about this from the beginning by mention of my boyfriend. Your language, whether deliberate or not, made clear your opinion on this fact. And unfortunately I cannot say that I am surprised at what I heard. 

Your claim that it is fair to ask gay couples to be celibate, as you ask the same for straight couples, holds little water. Straight Mormons have a chance of family in the Church, they have a chance of marriage ordained by God. Gay people are not given this chance. Our relationships are seen as sinful. Our relationships are seen as not fit to raise children in. Our relationships are less than. Under your doctrine these are indisputable facts. I have zero time for any movement, doctrine, or speech, which denies the love I have for my partner as real. 

I am lucky that I am only insulted and disgusted by this, for too many of my fellow queer people who are raised in the Church suffer far worse fates. More than 60% of queer youth self-harm, and more than 20% attempt suicide -- yesterday you spoke with two such people, Scott and myself. Not even to mention how for trans youth these figures for suicide almost triple -- how do you think this aligns with the Church's policy to deny them their gender? In the LDS heartland of Utah these statistics are even more troubling. Here children hear loud and clear the denial of their identities, and how they will never know love, and how they will never have their own families. The state government here has supressed the collection of information on LGBT suicide, the LDS influence on their legislature ensures this. Preventing this collection continues to allow the mass suicide of queer Mormon youth to go unnoticed. This is Church violence on my community, on my personhood. 

One can attempt a defense of the Church here on the grounds that Church doctrine is written by earthly men. But doctrine that allows the death of its youth cannot be the word of God, it cannot be a part of the Gospel. Scott made a case of hoping for change, which I understand. Your organisation has often had doctrinal change to suit modem politics and public image -- the outlawing of polygamy, accepting black Elders, no longer teaching that non-white races are unclean, and hopefully one day the acceptance of same-sex relationships. But the hope for change is no reason to excuse the Church's current state. No one would stay with a business that is killing its young workers, even if they say that they might change their minds in a few decades or so. I will not deny the love I have for my partner for any misplaced trust in your organisation. To deny this would be to deny myself. 

As both you and Elder Mauerham told me yesterday, my interpretations of the scripture thus far have been cogent and well thought out. I have been honest with you in my thoughts and action all this time, but I will never deny any part of myself as valid in exchange for a place in your organisation. As I told the last pair of Elders, I will warmly and willingly walk into the Telestial Kingdom as punishment for this. But let it be known that this will never be punishment for me, the unwavering expression of my love, in the face of opposition, is the greatest freedom I have. 

I hope that the two of you may one day see what the real loving and accepting world has to offer.

And I find it difficult to argue his points. What do we offer the LGBT community as a church? Yes we offer the ordinances required for Eternal Salvation, we offer the gospel in it's fulness and continuing revelation, but can we appreciate that from the outside looking in as an investigator these are conceptual rather than actual? That without having received that testimonial baptism of fire of the truthfulness of the restored gospel they don't actually mean very much. That what we're telling our gay/trans investigators is we expect you to give up the one you love, or the hope of ever finding him/her. That in a church where every facet points to you having a family, you will be denied this unless you marry against your sexual orientation. Depending on your local leadership you may be allowed date according to your attraction, but you will never be allowed to marry them if you fall in love. So even that tender mercy may end up being a curse. If you're trans you will never be allowed to hold the priesthood, nor enter the temple if you have had elective gender assignment surgery, even if you have it reversed.

Thousands of our youth are looking in the mirror and hating themselves, an enormously high percentage are so desperate they decide that mortality has no more to offer them and choose to end their second estate. Too many succeed. It destroys me that as an organisation we are doing nothing to reach out to these youth. That no one is telling them they are not a mistake, that their Heavenly Father loves them. There are false prophets & prophetesses out there that are giving them this message, and it's taking them away from those saving priesthood ordinances, from the power of the temples. 

His message hurts because it has too much truth in it. The blood of our children is being split and it needs to stop. And I don't know how to make it stop. My heart aches, my tears are split but I sit here helpless. This situation is an abomination that stains the true church.

Our children are dying, spiritually and physically, I beg you please make it stop!